Cannery Warehousemen, Local Union 788

24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 788, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, In- dependent and Marston Ball. Case 19-CB-1547 April 23, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On November 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Herman Cor- enman issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Em- ployer filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 788, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, La Conner, Washington, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' ' In footnote 18 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed June 8, 1970, by Marston Ball, an individual, against Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 788, affiliated with the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Independent, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re- lations Board on July 15, 1970, issued a complaint alleging that Respondent violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The answer filed by the Respondent denied engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. This proceeding with all parties represented by counsel was heard before me at Seattle, Washington, on September 15, 1970. All parties were accorded an opportunity to produce evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and to present briefs. Briefs by counsel for Gen- eral Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party have been submitted and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER It is established by the pleadings, and I find, that San Juan Islands Cannery, herein called the Employer, is a Washing- ton corporation engaged at La Conner, Washington, in proc- essing and canning food products. In the course of its business operations, it annually sells goods and services valued in excess of $500,000 and purchases and causes to be trans- ported directly across state lines goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. q I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues and the Background It is established by the pleadings that during all times material to these proceedings the Respondent and the Em- ployer were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement cov- ering the Employer's employees which, inter alia, contained a grievance and arbitration procedure for the settlement of any differences as to the interpretation of the agreement or any grievances arising thereunder. On August 11, 1969, two employees, namely Julianne Johnson and Cindi Shane, were discharged by their forelady. The Union contested the dis- charges through the contract's grievance and arbitration procedure, and pursuant thereto a hearing was held before Arbitrator Cornelius J. Peck, at Mount Vernon, Washington, on December 30, 1969. Marston Ball, the charging individual in this proceeding, was called as a witness by the Employer in the aforesaid arbitration hearing. Ball was employed as a utility mainte- nance man and at times as a crew leader in the packing season. He was a member of the Respondent Union as were the two girls whose grievances were before the arbitrator. It is stipulated and agreed between the parties that at the arbi- tration hearing Ball testified under oath "to the effect that Julianne Johnson, one of the grievants, worked on the carrot line for San Juan Island Cannery in 1968 and her perform- ance then was unsatisfactory." It was further stipulated by the parties that Julianne John- son notified the Respondent Union through its attorney, but not under oath, that she did not even work on the carrot line in 1968. It was further stipulated that Julianne Johnson was employed by the Employer during the canning season of 1968 which ended sometime in late August 1968. She was rehired in July 1969 with the commencement of the canning season and continued to work until her discharge on August 11, 1969. 190 NLRB No. 5. CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL UNION 788 Under date of January 30, 1970, the arbitrator issued his award in which he found in pertinent part that: The Employer discharged Julianne Johnson and Cindi Shane on August 11, 1969 for what in the opinion of its authorized representatives constituted lack of capability and competence, and this opinion of the authorized rep- resentatives of the Employer constituted just cause for discharge within the meaning of the collective bargain- ing agreement.' Relying on language in article X of the contract which provides: "The Company, however, reserves the right to dis- charge any person in its employ if incapable or incompetent. The Company shall be the judge of competency," the arbitra- tor concluded that the aforesaid contract provision makes it quite clear that the Employer can discharge for what in its judgment is a lack of competency. Accordingly, the arbitrator sustained the Employer's action in discharging the two girls. On or about March 10, 1970, Walter F. Tunks, the Union's secretary-treasurer and chief executive officer, notified Ball by undated registered letter that the Union's executive board had decided to try him on March 20, 1970, on charges stem- ming from his testimony before Arbitrator Peck above re- ferred to. The charges preferred by Mr. Tunks were as follows: I. Failure to abide by the provisions of ARTICLE XIX, Section E subsections (a) and (b) of the Bylaws of Can- nery Warehousemen Food Processors Drivers and Help- ers. II. Failure to abide by the Obligation attached to and made part of the APPLICATION and AUTHORIZATION BLANK signed July 11, 1962 when you applied for admission to this Local Union 788. III. Failure to abide by the provisions of the CONSTITU- TION of the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; ARTICLE XIX Section 6 (2) Violation of oath of loyalty to the Local Union and the International Union. (5) Abuse of fellow members or officers by written or oral communications. (8) Any action which is disruptive of or interferes with the performance or obligations of other members or Lo- cal Unions under collective bargaining agreements. IV. Giving false and misleading testimony on December 30, 1969 in an Arbitration Proceeding between this Local Union 788 and San Juan Island Cannery before a qua- lified Arbitrator Cornelius Peck. It is not in dispute that the gravamen of the charges leveled against Ball by the Union is contained in paragraph IV above reading as follows: ' The arbitrator recites in his decision that the forelady and personnel supervisor who participated in the discharge completed a form with copies supplied to the two employees, the Union and the personnel office indicating that the two girls had been discharged for" . . . lack of ability," and for" ... misconduct" with explanation under remarks: "The girl was repeatedly urged to work more and talk less; she did not respond properly." 25 Giving false and misleading testimony on December 30, 1969 in an Arbitration Proceeding between this Local Union 788 and San Juan Island Cannery before a qua- lified Arbitrator Cornelius Peck. Paragraphs I, II, and III of the charges are in the nature of union conclusionary assumptions that by giving such tes- timony before the arbitrator, Ball, in some manner violated his union obligations.' Ball attended his March 20 trial before the executive board. Under date of March 25, 1970, the Union's executive board directed a letter to Ball notifying him that he had been found guilty of paragraphs I, II, and III of the charges. With respect to paragraph IV, the executive board's finding was as follows: Paragraph IV The accusation of giving false and mis- leading testimony is held in abeyance. Brother Ball has again stated that Julianne Johnson was to the best of his belief and knowledge working on the carrot line during 1968. Miss Johnson has asserted that she in fact did not work on the carrot line in 1968. Since it is the opinion of the trial board that there is no way to truthfully answer this question it is held in abey- ance. The executive board imposed a $100 fine on Bail, "of which $75 was suspended for a period of 2 years, provided: that Brother Marston Ball does not engage in any future actions related to the charges for a period of 2 years." Under date of April 3, 1970, Marston Ball's counsel, Charles R. Twede, attorney-at-law, directed a letter to the executive board of the Union taking exception to their March 25, 1970, finding in which they held in abeyance a finding on the crucial charge in paragraph IV of the charges. Mr. Twede's letter in pertinent part reads as follows: As to the charges contained in Paragraph IV, wherein it is alleged by Walter F. Tunks, Secretary-Treasurer, that Marston Ball was guilty of giving false and mislead- ing testimony on December 30, 1969 in an arbitration proceeding between this local union 788 and San Juan County Cannery before a qualified arbitrator, Cornelius Peck, and he does dispute strongly your decision. According to Mr. Tunks' letter of March 25, 1970, you found as to this charge, "The accusation of giving false and misleading testimony is held in abeyance. Brother Ball has again stated that Julianne Johnson was to the best of his belief and knowledge working on the carrot line during 1968. Miss Johnson has asserted that she, in fact, did not work on the carrot line in 1968. Since it is the opinion of the trial board that there is no way to truthfully answer this question it is held in abeyance." Gentlemen, I refer you to the By-Laws of the Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers, Local Union No. 788, at page 41, subparagraph c., under XX entitled CHARGES AND TRIALS. c. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. Throughout the proceedings, there shall be a presumption of inno- cence in favor of accused. Clear and convincing evi- dence must be presented to support the charges, and the accused shall have the right to present his own evidence, rebut testimony against him, present wit- nesses favorable to him and cross-examine adverse witnesses. ' Thus, art. XIX, sec. E, subsecs. (a) and (b) of the Union's bylaws obligates members to abide by the bylaws and International constitution and authorizes the Union to act as exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive. The obligation contained in the application for membership and author- ization blank contains among other language the member's obligation to be "charitable in judgment of my brother members, and will never from self- motives wrong a brother, or see him wronged if in my power to prevent it." 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I submit to you as officers of your local union that your own By-Laws make it mandatory since the accuser did not prove this charge against Mr. Ball by clear and convincing evidence that you must find Marston Ball innocent of the charges made in Paragraph IV. I respect- fully submit on behalf of Marston Ball that you have no right to hold this question in abeyance. It is your duty to make a decision on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial and since the accuser failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Marston Ball was guilty as charged, it is your absolute duty to dismiss those charges against him and find him innocent. I respectfully request, on behalf of your member, Mar- ston Ball, that this matter be taken up by the Executive Board at its earliest opportunity and I would appreciate receiving word as to when your board meets again to consider this question. Under date of April 14, 1970, Mr. Tunks directed a letter to Ball referring to Mr. Twede's letter of April 3, 1970, and notifying Ball that the executive board would reconvene as a trial body on May 4, 1970, at 7 p.m., for the purpose of concluding the "procedural matter called to its attention by Mr. Charles Twede." The letter notified Ball of his right to attend the proceedings. The hearing reconvened on May 4 as scheduled. Attending this reconvened hearing were the Un- ion executive board, Mr. Tunks, Mr. Ball, and two of his fellow workers. According to the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Ball, Mr. Tunks "opened up by stating he had been advised by his own attorney that paragraph IV of the union's charge could not be held in abeyance, and they had their choice of either calling this girl back and putting her on one side of the table and me [Ball] on the other, examining the two of us to determine which one was telling the truth or they could drop the charges." During the course of the meet- ing, Tunks also said, according to the credible testimony of Ball: "Marston, you know there is an unwritten law that one union member does not testify against another member."' Under date of May 6, 1970, Tunks directed the following letter to Ball: This letter is sent to advise you the Executive Board of Local 788 has pursuant to its meeting held with you on May 4, 1970, reconsidered its findings on Paragraph IV of its original findings mailed to you on March 25, 1970. The decision of the executive board is as follows: Paragraph IV. The charges of Paragraph IV are dismissed with- out any findings. Since the findings of the original trial in regards to Paragraph I, II, and III were guilty as charged, it sus- tains the fine of $100.00 (one-hundred) dollars of which $75.00 (seventy-five) dollars is suspended for a period of 2 (two) years; provided that you do not engage in any further actions related to the charges for a period of 2 (two) years. It is undisputed that Ball did not exercise his right of appeal under the established intraunion procedure, although advised by Tunks of his right of appeal. After consulting with his attorney, Ball filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board on June 8, 1970. Analysis and Conclusionary Findings The question for determination is whether the Union's conduct in fining Ball for giving testimony adverse to union grievant Johnson in the arbitration proceeding thereby vi- olated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (3) of the Act. In its post hearing brief, Respondent's counsel makes the following concession: At the outset, we emphasize that, although we can find absolutely no authority for it, we conceded the va- lidity of the crux of General Counsel' s legal argument. That is, we agree that a union which disciplines em- ployees for testifying in arbitration proceedings violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act because such activity in the face of our national labor policy favoring arbitration. Further, we agree that upon a showing (which is absent here) that the Union has interfered with the employees' ability to participate in a contractual arbitration proce- dure, a violation of Section 8(b)(3) has been made out. Drawing the issue between the General Counsel and the Respondent, the Respondent's posthearing brief states the issue as follows: Where we part company with the General Counsel is in the unsupported allegation that in this case, the em- ployee, Marston Ball, was charged and disciplined for testifying in the arbitration hearing and further the ass- ertion the union has no remedy against members who do testify falsely. It is now firmly established that a labor organization, under the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A), may in certain instances fine an employee-member for violating union rules relating to the acquisition or retention of membership.' But the Board and the Supreme Court have held that the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not license the labor organization to expel or levy fines for every infraction of intraunion rules. Thus, where labor organizations have levied disciplinary fines or expelled members for filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB without first exhausting intraunion procedures, the Board' and the Supreme Court' have held that internal union rules must yield to the overriding public policy of preserving access to the Board's remedial processes without the re- straints of union discipline or reprisal. In N. L.R.B. v. Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, supra, the Supreme Court declared the rule as follows: A healthy interplay of the forces governed and pro- tected by the Act means that there should be as great a freedom to ask the Board for relief as there is to petition any other department of government for a redress of grievances. Any coercion used to discourage, retard, or defeat that access is beyond the legitimate interests of a labor organization. Union disciplinary fines for working behind a picket line have also been proscribed in instances where the union rule violates the no-strike clause of a collective-bargaining agree- ment' or coerces an employer in the selection of his represen- tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust- ' The witness, Donald E. Hicks, a fellow employee present at the May 4 hearing corroborates Ball's testimony concerning this remark made by Tunks. Tunks' testimony concerning this remark was as follows: I told Mr. Ball for practical reasons the true brotherhood would not even have to have that in there, but we did know that it was necessary and there was nothing unwritten about it period.... The substance of the law is a member testifying falsely about seeing another Teamster member mistreated. That is the substance of it." Wisconsin Motor Corp., 145 NLRB 1097; Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 149 NLRB 67; Scofield, et al. v. N.L.R.B.,, 394 U.S. 423; N.L.R.B. v. Allis- Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175; Arrow Development Co., 185 NLRB No. 22. Chas. S. Skura, 148 NLRB 679. N.L.R.B. v. Marine & Shipbuilding Workers Union, 391 U.S. 418 (ex- pulsion). National Grinding Wheel Company, Inc., 176 NLRB No. 89. CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL UNION 788 ment of grievances' or where a fine was imposed on strike- breaking employees who had resigned their union member- ship before crossing the picket line to report for work;' or imposed a fine on a union member for filing a decertification petition with the Board10 or fined him for circulating a decer- tification petition;" or for giving damaging testimony against the union in a prior unfair labor practice proceeding." The principles behind Board and court decisions holding that intraunion rules must yield to the overriding policy of maintaining free and unobstructed access to the Board with- out fear of union reprisal, by analogy, are applicable in the instant case. Arbitration is the keystone to industrial peace in the day- to-day application and interpretation of the collective-bar- gaining agreement, and its integrity without impediment has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Steelworkers trilogy." It is essential to the existence of the arbitration process that witnesses testify before the arbitrator without fear of reprisal from either the employer or the union. The Board, too, recognizing the importance of preserving the in- tegrity of arbitration, defers to it where it meets standards announced in Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080, and other cases." Conduct by an employer or a labor organization which destroys the integrity of the contractual arbitration clause, in effect, nullifies that clause in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act. When committed by a labor organization, such conduct violates Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.15 In the case at bar, although it was formally charged by union officer Tunks that Ball had given "false and misleading testimony at the arbi -ation proceeding," the Union Execu- tive Board, which conducted the hearing and sat in judgment on the matter, dismissed that count of the charge. Neverthe- less, the Executive Board fined Ball $25. It is reasonable to conclude, and I find, that the action of the Union's Executive Board in finding Ball guilty of the fi.. t three counts of the charges was based on the fact that Ball had given adverse testimony against a union member in the arbitration proceed- " N.L.R.B. v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (General Metal Products Inc.), 430 F. 2d 1348, (C.A. 10), and cases cited at fn. 2, enfg. 178 NLRB No. 24 - where the union fine violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Boeing Co., 185 NLRB No. 23. ° Blackhawk Tanning Co., 178 NLRB No. 25 - where the Board held that when a union only fines a member because he has filed a decertification petition (rather than to expel him) the effect is not defensive and can only be punitive-to discourage members from seeking such access to the Board's processes. " Smith Lee Co. 182 NLRB No. 129. " Spitler-Demmer, Inc., 184 NLRB No. 64. " United Steelworkers ofAmerica v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564; United Steel Workers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574; United Steelworkers ofAmerica v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593. In Steelworkers v. Warrior Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, the Court in emphasizing the importance of arbitration to industrial peace said: We held in Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448,40 LRRM 2113, 2120... That the policy to be applied in enforcing this type of arbitration was that reflected in our national labor laws. Id at 456-457. The present federal policy is to promote industrial stabilization through the collective bargaining agreement.... A major factor in achieving industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision for arbitration of griev- ances in the collective bargaining agreement.... Complete effectuation of the federal policy is achieved when the agreement contains both an arbitration provision for unresolved grievances and an absolute prohibi- tion of strikes, the arbitration agreement being the quid pro quo for the agreement not to strike. " See, e.g., International Harvester Co., 138 NLRB 923, affd. 327 F.2d 784 (C.A. 9); Dubo Mfg. Co., 142 NLRB 431; Raleys Inc., 143 NLRB 256. " Compare Plumbers Local 280, 184 NLRB No. 44; Milk, Ice Cream Drivers, etc. Local No. 783, Teamsters, 147 NLRB 264; UMWA (McCoy Coal Co.), 165 NLRB 592. 27 ing. No other inference appears. It is reasonable to conclude that, because of his testimony , Ball was found by the union executive board to have violated his obligation to be "charita- ble in judgment of my brother members, and will never from self motives wrong a brother or see him wronged if in my power to prevent it." This conclusion is buttressed by the remarks made by Tunks during Ball's trial before the execu- tive board in which he said, "Marston , you know there is an unwritten law that one union member does not testify against another member." Upon all of the evidence, I am persuaded, and I find, that Ball was charged, tried, and fined for giving testimony ad- verse to the Union's position before the arbitrator . Such ac- tion, I find coerced and restrained Ball and other employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in the same manner and to the same extent that similar intraunion discipline re- strains and coerces employees exercising their rights to file unfair labor practice charges or give testimony in unfair labor practice proceedings before the Board . Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Ma- rine Shipbuilding Workers Union, supra; Charles S. Skura, supra; and Spitler-Demmer, Inc., supra. In agreement with the General Counsel , I also find that the Union, by its conduct in charging, trying, and fining Ball for giving adverse testimony before Arbitrator Peck , thereby refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. The conduct of the Union in disciplining Ball for giving testimony adverse to the grievant before the arbitrator tended to obstruct and impair the contractual arbitration proce- dures. If either the employer or the Union were permitted to take reprisal against witnesses before the arbitrator , the integ- rity of the arbitration process would be destroyed and the arbitration clause perverted . The Respondent Union argues in its brief that "the evidence supports the union assertion that charges were brought because he (Ball ) gave alleged false and misleading testimony at the arbitration hearing ." I do not doubt that the union charges issued on Tunks' belief that Ball testified falsely. I find, however, that there was not sufficient basis for the Union to make such a serious charge16 against Ball. I am not prepared to hold that a labor organization is prohibited by the Act from taking any form of discipline against a member who gives perjured testimony in an arbitra- tion proceeding , but I am of the opinion that we need not reach that question in the instant case, as there is a total absence of any proof that Ball 's testimony before Arbitrator Peck was false or perjured . Moreover, a conclusion that tes- timony was perjured , in my opinion, would be warranted only after a conviction in a criminal prosecution before a court of competent jurisdiction. In summary therefore I find that the Respondent, in charg- ing, trying, and fining Ball because of his testimony before Arbitrator Peck thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (3) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By charging, trying, and fining Marston Ball because he gave testimony adverse to the Respondent's grievance on behalf of Julianne Johnson, a member of the Respondent " The charge of false testimony was based only on an unsworn side remark by the grievant Johnson that she did not work on the carrot line in 1968, in contradiction to Ball's sworn testimony that she did. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, in contractual arbitration proceedings, the Respond- ent restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of the provi- sions of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act; and impaired the integ- rity of the arbitration clause in the collective-bargaining agreement, thereby violating Section 8(d) and 8(b)(3) of the Act. 4. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy the coercive and restraining effect upon all employee-members by the trial procedure and the resulting fine against Marston Ball, it is recommended that Respondent be required to rescind the fine against Marston Ball, to expunge from its records all refer- ences to the fine, and to notify all members of the rescission of such fine and of their right to testify in arbitration proceed- ings under the collective-bargaining agreement without fear of being charged, tried, or fined for doing so, such notices to be posted at Respondent's office and hall and at San Juan Islands Cannery's place of business providing the latter is willing. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER Respondent, Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 788, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by charging, trying, fining, or otherwise disciplining, its members because they gave testimony adverse to the Union's position in arbi- tration procedures under a collective-bargaining agreement, and by such conduct thereby impairing the integrity of arbi- tration procedures under a collective-bargaining agreement. (b) In any like or related manner restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or refusing to bargain with an employer in violation of Sections 8(d) and 8(b)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the fine against Marston Ball and expunge from Respondent's records all reference to the fine; and if such fine has been paid, make reimbursement to Marston Ball the amount of the payment with interest at 6 percent. (b) Post, in the Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Ap- peals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of The National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Copies of such notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by an author- ized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Copies shall be posted in con- spicuous places, within clear view of all persons entering the Respondent's hall. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Upon request of the Re- gional Director, Respondent shall supply him with a suffi- cient number of signed copies for posting by San Juan Islands Cannery if desired by them. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso- far as it alleges any violation of the Act not specifically found herein. Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 1' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the ex- ercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by charging, trying, fining, or otherwise disciplining them because of their giving testimony adverse to the Union's position in arbitration procedures before an ar- bitrator under a collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in their exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act or impair the integrity of the arbitration procedures of the collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL rescind the fine assessed against Marston Ball and expunge from our records all reference to such fine. WE WILL reimburse the aforementioned Marston Ball for any amount he may have paid on such fine with interest at 6 percent from the date of such payment. CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, FOOD PROCESSORS, DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 788, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL UNION 788 29 This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with one. its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Republic This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washing- from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or ton 98101, Telephone 583-4532, covered by any other material.